tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 12, 2014 2:15pm-4:31pm EDT
phone company, complaining about perhaps calls that they are receiving, the phone company can work with that consumer to identify tools that may be available to that consumer so that they can either -- >> such as? you could have the technology that if a spoofed number comes up, that somehow it alerts the customer? >> that is, that is actually the ultimate goal of the s.t.i.e.r. that i was talking about in my oral and written testimony, mr. chairman, and essentially -- written testimony. the endgame of that technology is that you will have an authentication between the person being called and the calling party so that -- >> is that technology available today?
>> it is not yet available today, mr. chairman, we do have industry and government involvement on developing those standards. because we have to develop a standard in order to implement that technology into the network. >> well, if you could have heard all of the hearings that we have had, and just to complicate matters, a lot of them don't originate in this country. they are from a foreign country, and that means you've got to work with another government in order to get them to cooperate to go after the guys. so that makes it doubly difficult and longer and longer and, therefore, the development of technology that will help someone identify a number of them who gets spoofed, that would be extremely helpful in the protection of senior citizens, indeed, protection of customers. because of the vote that is now occurring, i want to say that i
want to bring to the table retailers who offer the services to send money, such as western union, moneygram, and the various cards. we're going to have a future hearing on the -- various cards. they have been reluctant to come. i want to tell them that obviously we will treat them very fairly, but they are being used to perpetrate fraud on our people. and we don't like this. and the american people don't like it. so we want them to come and help work with us and with law enforcement and the agencies. the regulatory agencies. i'm encouraged by the action of some retailers and debit card companies that they have taken, but several of them were reluctant to come.
we wl compel them to come because we're going to get at the bottom of this. thank you all. the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> here's what's had today on c-span2. next, discussion on domestic drone usage. in a congressional hearing looks at telephone scams aimed at seniors. and later from our q&a series, conversation with dr. alfredo quinones-hinojosa. is a brief look at that. >> how did you come to the country illegally and then how did you become legal? >> it's quite interesting. so you know that through the country, this country was built upon people who have come and immigrated to this country. some of them legally, some of them illegally.
and my kids i came in with no documentation and the ability to get a job or an education. so when i first came into the united states in the late '80s and across the border between mexico and the united states, ended up coming into the san joaquin valley to work as a migrant farm worker. there was no challenge to find a job. they were not a lot of thousands of people to get the jobs of pulling weeds with the very same hands that i am now doing brain surgery. i was pulling the weeds from the land, the land that is doing all the products, cauliflower, corn, all those kinds of things. my hands were bloody. continuous being heard. not a lot of people lining a. i came and asked for a job and i got a job. then eventually right around ronald reagan had an immigration reform that gave a working authorization specifically for people who had been in the
united states for a certain amount of years. and then there was a special legislation for people who came and worked as migrant farm workers. that legislation allowed you to have a working authorization. that was the first state coming to pay taxes and eventually, you could go back anywhere. couldn't go back to your country. but it allowed you to work legally, pay taxes and eventually apply for a green card, which eventually is what i did. so the country was welcoming people like me who work in the fields. it was a different time. and i felt that i was given an opportunity, an opportunity to lead the american dream. >> join us later today when we'll show you our interview with dr. alfredo quinones-hinojosa again in its entirety, this from our q&a program. it's one of the author into use from our latest book "sundays at eight." you can see the program today at
call us at 202626, 3400 or e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the senate commerce committee held a hearing earlier this year on the government's efforts to regulate domestic aerial drone usage, intelligence committee chairman dianne feinstein was among those testifying saying armed drones should be banned on u.s. soil. this is just over two hours. >> we are very fortunate as if hearing comes to order to have a very dear friend of mine, and my colleague to my right here, barbara boxer, giving some independent tests were. it's sort of a lofty thing to do.
i mean, you don't have to answer any questions. you just say what you believe. you lay it on the line. we are all busy taking notes, and then you're gone out the door. it's a powerful position, but we tremendously welcome you. i love working with you on the intelligence committee, and i'm proud that you have come to the commerce committee and you are on. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and to the ranking member, to my friend and colleague, senator boxer, senator coats who does a great job on the intelligence committee, and other members who are here today. i had the privilege of meeting with the former mayor of newark, new jersey, who was a great mayor and is a great united states senator. it's good to see you. and, mr. chairman, a want to thank you for your support for many years on the senate intelligence committee and for the role you played so fairly
finally. so thank you very much. member thing, members of the committee and fellow witnesses, i believe civilian drone technology, much of which has been developed in california has great potential for both beneficial uses and for job creation. of the unique capabilities of the drone bring with it significant risks, most notably related to privacy and public safety. i believe we should proceed with caution and that congress must act to set reasonable rules to protect the american people and ensure that this industry can reach its potential. today, the commercial uses of drones is prohibited by faa regulations unless a special permit is granted. faa has issued cease-and-desist orders against violators and has imposed a $10,000 fine in at
least one case. law enforcement use of drones is carefully restricted and only legal with special permission from the faa through a certificate of authorization. but the 2012 faa reauthorization bill requires integration of drones into the airspace by 2015, and many believe this will be a booming industry in a few years. the potential is significant. drones can come in all shapes and sizes with many potential uses. the california national guard used to drones to observe the recent rimfire, huge fire, writes out -- right outside of you simply parking california. helped firefighters be identified in dangerous situations and reduce contained time. drones can be used for
agricultural purposes, to help monitor crops more efficiently. drones are likely a safer, more affordable way to inspect wind turbines, radio towers, pipelines, bridges and key national infrastructure. some have imagined more unexpected uses. for example, amazon's ceo recently suggested that his company was testing the use of drones for delivering packages within 30 minutes of an order. fedex, look out. but as with other evolving technologies, there are new risks to consider as well. let me first address privacy. as chairman of the committee on which the three of this year serve, i have seen firsthand the surveillance capabilities of drones aircraft. drones have a unique capability to peer into private homes and
businesses come and listen to private conversations. obviously, civilian drones will not be the same as those used overseas for national security operations. but the drones exhibited to the judiciary committee in a hearing last year was very small and very light weight. such drones can take high-definition photos and videos, and even transmit them to the users ipad. i personally, well, i'll to the story. i was being a demonstration in front of my house, and so i went to the window to peek out and see who was there, and there was a drone right there at the window looking at me. obviously the pond of the drone had some surprise, because the drones wheeled around and crash. so i felt a little good about that.
what kind of camera was mounted on it? what kind of microphone? could an enterprising person have fastened a firearm to it? these are questions that demand answers. even with civilian drone technology in its infancy, privacy concerns are significant. so i believe we should take very seriously and move with steps to protect the privacy and safety of our fellow citizens before these capabilities are developed and unleashed, not after. so that people will develop and build the industry to be able to adhere to certain privacy restrictions. how close to a home? can you photograph inside windows? can real estate agents take drones and sweep out closed down by a house and photograph a
house? all these are questions that have to be answered. so i'm working with you, mr. chairman, on legislation to do that. and i want to be as helpful as i can, but i think first there should be strong, binding, enforceable privacy policies that govern drone operations. and that can be done before the technology is upon us. a larger drone might survey an oil pipeline and eight tiny remote helicopter hobbyists shouldn't be subject to the same rules. so the system must be flexible, but it must be strong and enforceable to ensure privacy is protected. secondly, we need strong privacy protections for government use. early on. we know today that the fbi has used drone technology in at least 10 cases, including one to
ensure the safety of a kidnapped child. now that's a beneficial use of drones technology. but were this technology to be deployed on a widespread basis by the government for persistent surveillance, it would pose significant privacy concerns. therefore, i believe a search word requirement with appropriate emergency exceptions would be the way to go. safety is another issue. in 2012, gao report highlighted a number of safety issues with respect to drone technology that have not been addressed, including the ability to sense and avoid another aircraft. we've heard reports, and i can't say this is true, but i read in the newspaper, of a drone flying too close to an aircraft landing at jfk airport. and have small drones landed in
crowds and endangering bystanders. the faa has a broad safety mandate, and it must use that authority to protect the public. finally, we should not allow armed drones in the united states, period. it should be a crime for a private individual in the united states to army drone. the faa should use its certification and licensing authorities to prohibit armed drones. and no government, state or federal, should use an armed drone on american soil. there's one other thing i want to say. the drone was invented in this country. as such, we have a real responsibility. there is a long line of countries that want to integrate drone warfare into their
militaries and into their civilian commercial populations. so i think since we invented it here, that we have a real responsibility to be the first in the field with the regulations by which they will be operated, and by the privacy restrictions by which people will have their rights protected. so i think the technology has great potential, and i think we really need to make sure as a first step that america's legitimate concerns about privacy and safety are addressed. and i think you are just the committee to do it. i thank you for asking me to be here today. >> thank you, chairman feinstein, very, very much. and you've raised just in your excellent testimony one interesting question, which i plan to ask of mr. arcangeli.
the yamaha motor corporation has been doing drones for agriculture and other purposes for some 20 years in japan. and i want to take some of the points which you raised and apply those to him in my question if i have a chance to do that. you are very valuable as always. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, members. >> very busy college. -- colleague. with your forbearance i will not give my opening statement followed by the my distinguished colleague. and then we'll go to our witnesses who are free to go to the table if they wish. some believe that unmanned aerial systems, which many people call drones, are the latest evidence that robots or machines are going to take over the world.
other people believe these vehicles present a massive opportunity for american productivity and economic growth. the truth probably lies somewhere in between. unmanned aircraft are a rapidly emerging technology with great commercial potential. no question. but along with this potential , as senator feinstein indicated, there are some serious concerns. just as we have done in the past, our job is to foster the growth of this new industry while managing the risks. here is what we know about aviation today, it is a major part of our economy and it is relatively safe. it's more than about have a safe. tens of thousands of aircraft use our skies every day to transport passengers, ship goods, or perform public safety and military missions.
given the large number and the wide variety of aircraft that use our national airspace, our safety record is remarkably good. i am very proud of that record. i think the faa should be, too. it's the product of a lot of hard work by the aviation industry and safety officials at the federal aviation administration and other agencies. and also, people have not seen good results from those, the pressure that they bring on all of us to make sure that things get safer. it's also the product of some tough lessons learned in the aftermath of some serious accidents. we are going to have to use those lessons as a guide as we confront the latest in aviation technology. all of which is, you know, this is a very interesting subject.
we are all fully with afghanistan and iraq, and most have questions about that, but on the other hand, here's this whole new commercial field which suddenly pops up and we have all kinds of visions. depending upon the scope of your visions and capacity of your imagination, they can terrify you, excite you, or as we say, somewhere in between. improving aviation safety has always been one of my top priorities on this committee. it darn well better be. the faa safety act of 2010 and the faa reauthorization act of 2012 took a lot of important steps to strengthen aviation safety, including developing new pilot fatigue and training rules. striking the right balance between safety regulations and business realities is always tricky, but it makes all the difference for successful new industries.
in the 2012 faa bill, we told the faa to begin figuring out how to safely introduce a new kind of aircraft into our national airspace, a type of aircraft that is operated not by pilots physically present in the cockpit, but by operators on the ground. this is a strange and interesting concept for those of us who are new to this. whether we call them uass, uavs, or drones, these aircraft are an exciting new development in the aviation industry. but they also raise some serious safety and privacy concerns, and senator feinstein i think pretty well did that by facing a drone five inches from her face, which was so terrified it didn't crash which raises the safety question which i will have to ask. but the faa needs to get on this
to license these vehicles for broad use international airspace. it needs to do it for we take on any series commitment at all. administrator huerta is going to report to us today on the progress the faa has been making on uas integration. he is going to tell us that the faa is doing what any safety agency should do before it allows a new vehicle on to a busy highway. the agency is carefully considering the views of aviation safety experts. and it is working with manufacturers to test how unmanned aircraft perform in a variety of real-world situations. earlier this month, administrator huerta announced the locations of six sites where this testing will take place. some people don't think the faa is moving fast enough. but i understand why the faa is carefully considering these questions. lives are at stake. it is new, and the whole world is waiting to get at it.
people, a lot of people just want a world of 55-pound, much where things than just be those delivering amazon packages right to johnston's doorstep. and that's exciting. one of the most important problems with the faa found that the faa and the industry are trying to solve is avoiding collisions between unmanned and piloted aircraft. a basic assumption of our current aviation safety system is that each aircraft is operated by a human pilot trained to see and avoid other aircraft. what should the rules be when an unmanned aircraft and an aircraft with a human pilot and passengers are converging in the air? i don't put as much stock in what i'm about to say as what appeared. another significant challenge the unmanned aviation industry faces is a perception problem.
which is obviously the fact of the use of drones armed in afghanistan and iraq. i think it's fairly simple to separate those two in our minds if we are serious about the subject, we will do that. quickly. we are all much more familiar with the military applications of unmanned aircraft, and that's understandable, then we are with their civilian commercial applications. we are only just now beginning to learn that these aircraft can be used to apply fertilizer to crops, film movies, monitor hurricanes, stare at senators through windows, or in the future, potentially deliver amazon boxes unmanned aircraft have to send defense home. -- senator stearns home. tremendous economic potential, but we can't ignore the threat they pose to our personal privacy.
people say safety and privacy, it's all good stuff. they are very, very different matters. american consumers are already under assault by companies that collect and use our personal information. and believe me, are we familiar with that in this committee. as we learned in the data broker hearing we held in this committee last month, there is a multi-billion dollar industry in this country dedicated to tracking our health status, our shopping habits, and our movements. if the data brokers of today controlled uass, i don't know -- i would leave probably for candidate. i don't know what american consumers have is or choices would remain private if that were the case. they would be no privacy because they can be everywhere, large, small, omnipresent. people are right to worry that drones in our national airspace could be yet another way for private companies to track where we are and what we are doing. i am looking forward to this discussion today.
i want to talk about how our country can benefit from this new technology, without sacrificing our safety or our personal freedoms. before turning it to senator thune, i am neither convinced -- i am basically kind of neutral right now, neutral meaning a bit skeptical but neutral. i'm open to learning, which is what this is all about. is to hear the people who are for and the people against it and for members in this hearing to ask questions. i want to be sure that regulations are proper, and so we have a lot to learn today. senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have a lot of uncongested airspace in west virginia as we do in south dakota, but the real test of the design of these systems is whether not they can
continue to operate at 50 below windchill because that's something that we have in our state. that will test the delivery to my house of whatever it is i order from amazon. i want to thank you for holding a hearing, mr. chairman, the issue of unmanned aviation is important one that touches on many areas within the committees brought jurisdiction and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. unmanned aviation is undoubtedly the next significant frontier in the aviation sector. the faa currently accommodates limited flights by unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system with case-by-case approvals, but widespread integration for safe and routine access will require substantial work by the faa and other stakeholders. given the potential benefits of unmanned aviation, the last faa reauthorization bill in 2012 directed the agency to develop the safety standards necessary to ensure this relatively new technology can operate safely and seamlessly with existing manned aviation in our nation's airspace. i look forward to hearing a progress report from administrator huerta regarding
the faa bill's mandates, and how the faa intends to utilize the six recently announced test sites to establish safety standards and regulations for the safe flight of unmanned aircraft. with regard to the expected benefits of unmanned aviation, i look forward to hearing further analysis of how the market for unmanned aircraft is expected to develop under the regulatory framework directed by the faa bill, including some specifics on how safe integration of unmanned aircraft could benefit agriculture producers, weather forecasting, and public safety. as safety regulators work through the challenges of the integration of unmanned aircraft, questions related to privacy have certainly received a lot of attention. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses regarding the current framework of privacy protections, including at the six test sites, and discussing what role, if any, the faa should have in policing those concerns. of course, as we consider the privacy implications for unmanned aircraft, we will likely need to think beyond the now-common image of military-style drones, perhaps amazon's recent discussion about
possibly using unmanned aircraft for package deliveries has already done that. these aircraft are currently being flown, albeit in limited fashion, around the world, and the benefits certainly look promising. we must also remember that the aviation industry is a competitive worldwide industry, and the timely resolution of both the safety issues and privacy concerns will be necessary for the u.s. to utilize such technologies, while also maintaining its leadership position in this emerging aviation sector. while this is certainly not the only hearing this committee will hold on this topic, i look forward to today's discussion of these challenging issues, and i thank the witnesses for their participation. thank you. >> thank you, senator thune. administrator huerta, you are in a good place to begin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman rockefeller, senator thune, members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the integration of unmanned aircraft systems, or uas, into american airspace. this is an important development in aviation today. aviation was born in the united states, and over the last century we have maintained the prestigious status as the largest and the most advanced aviation system in the world. part of this aviation gold standard has been to embrace innovation and enable advances that have shaped and enhanced our aviation system. we see this innovation with nextgen as we transition from a system of ground-based radar and navigational aids to a system that uses satellite-based technology for greater precision, more direct routes and better fuel efficiency and predictability. unmanned aviation systems continue that tradition of innovation and offer a new unique addition to our airspace. let me be clear, that safety is our number one priority as we begin the integration of unmanned systems into our
airspace. we have successfully brought many of the new technologies into the nation's aviation system over the last several decades and i have no doubt that we will do the same with unmanned aircraft. the american airspace is advanced and efficient because we have embraced and accommodated these new new technologies. there will be challenges to this integration but i'm confident that we can deliver this mandate. we will integrate unmanned systems in a measured, systematic manner as we've done with other new technologies. ultimately unmanned aircraft have the potential to benefit a large number of americans. each new development in aviation is unique in its own way and the same is true for unmanned aircraft. unmanned aircraft assisting click different from me in aircraft. they had a wide range of physical and operational characteristics. some are as small as a baseball and fly at low altitudes. on the other end of the spectrum there are others that have firelight bodies in a wingspan of a major aircraft and they can fly above 60,000 feet.
some can fly longer than manned aircraft and can hover like helicopters. many are also lighter and slower than traditional aircraft and have more lift and less drag. the underlying common characteristic of unmanned aircraft systems is that the buyer is on the ground and not on board the aircraft. this is entirely different from today's manned aircraft. the faa forecast anticipates that 7500 small unmanned aircraft will be added to u.s. airspace in the next five years as long as the necessary regulations are in place to manage them. while we to allow unmanned systems in our airspace, we do so on a case-by-case basis for public use, for research purposes and limited commercial use. there are two key developments toward unmanned integration that i would like to share with you. on november 7 of last year the faa released the first unmanned aircraft systems civil integration roadmap. this plan outlines the key steps we need to take to safely integrate unmanned aircraft.
it was developed with key stakeholders and it provides a five year outlook with annual updates. i'm also pleased to report that on december 30 we announced our selections are six unmanned aircraft systems research and test sites in states across the country. after an extensive evaluation process we identified these locations to gather data to assist the faa in developing regulations for the safe integration of unmanned systems. we do not have the same amount of data for unmanned operations as we do for manned aircraft. this new information will help us to prudently and safely introduce more unmanned systems into the airspace. i'm confident that our research goals will be met at these locations. the faa has established vibrant for each test site that will help protect privacy. test site operators would be required to comply with federal-state and other laws protecting an individual's right to privacy.
they will also be required of publicly available privacy policies and a written plan for data use and data retention. and each side must conduct an annual review of privacy practices. the faa also continues to work with other u.s. government agencies to address privacy issues that may arise with the increasing use of unmanned systems. this collaboration is detailed in the comprehensive plan which highlights our multiagency approach to the safe integration of unmanned systems. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i want to assure you that the faa will fulfill its statutory obligations to integrate unmanned systems as directed by congress. we must meet these obligations in a thoughtful and careful manner that ensured safety and promote economic growth. our airspace is not static. it is important for users in the public to understand that unmanned operations will evolve over time. any new technology brings opportunities and challenges.
but we have demonstrated before how we can successfully integrate innovative technologies over time. we saw this a can and again during the last century of flight, and i anticipate the same for unmanned systems. thank you again for your invitation to testify and i would be happy to address any questions you have today. >> thank you very much. dr. mary cummings. in parentheses there's mac in the middle of that. [inaudible] >> that was my call sign in the military. >> i'm going to stay formal. >> that's fine. >> dr. cummings is a former navy fighter pilot -- were you the first? >> in the first group, yes or. >> and director of the human and autonomy laboratory at duke university. we are very honored to have you here and we look forward to your
testimony. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman and senator thune and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to commit today to talk to you about the future integration of unmanned systems in the u.s. economy. i am the director of the duke university humans and autonomy lab in which focuses on the multifaceted interaction of humans and autonomous systems. i have advice all branches of the military on technology and policies related to unmanned aerial vehicles, are commonly called drones, and they do have personal aviation experience as i was one of the first u.s. fighter pilots for the navy when women were introduced. i do applaud the faa's recent the very late naming of their six test site but i like most experts in the field agree that the faa will not be able to meet the mandate to integrate jones in the national airspace by 2015. while we are making some progress towards this goal, the
united states in my opinion is not leading the commercial drug industry. it is lacking. for example, in japan drones make up more than 90% of cropdusting which is a very dangerous job for a human pilot. in the uk you can use drones for commercial photography. you can use them for crop monitoring. they can deliver food to your table at a restaurant. they can deliver pizza to your home. and while i do appreciate amazon's big announcement about drones package delivery, unfortunately there are companies in china and australia that beat them to the punch. some many government and watchdog agency's site safety and privacy as you noted as justification for why drone use should not be in the commercial sphere anytime soon. while i will defer to my colleagues about the privacy issues in terms of safety, the statistics clearly indicate the safety for particularly military drones platforms is improving very quickly. it is true that when you compare
accident rates as measured by the industry standard of number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours, drones do have a higher accident rate when you look at the last 20 years. but this kind of comparison is apples to oranges because the drone industry is a fledgling one, and manned aviation is more than 100 years to improve its safety record. asking about the -- asking what ask array of manned aviation was in about the 1930s which was 60 times higher than it is today. i think a better question to ask is about the rate of gun safety improvement. the u.s. military reached a landmark and to join industry reached a landmark safety record a little bit more than a year ago when a predator accident rate dropped lower than manned fighters and manned bombers. for the first time in u.s. history, the are now missions that are safer flown by a computer than by human. the military is not the only
domain where recent ocd records have surpassed that of humans. the last 20 years general aviation has had the highest accident rate of all manned aircraft, and that rate has not budged very much in the last 20 years. given the increasing safety rates of drones, drones are now about 25% safer to fly than general aviation aircraft. as a former fighter pilot and a private pilot, i understand the importance of what i'm saying, which is that on average a drone on average a drones do better but then i am. for the first five years of operations, drones were more than twice as likely to have an action as opposed to a manned aviation. after 15 years of operations that number dropped to about 25% more likely. if this dramatic improvement continues, theoretically drones hd will be on par with commercial aviation in about 10 years. while i'm not suggesting a passenger aircraft will become drones, these numbers should be
placed in the context of the overall larger aviation safety picture. manned aviation has or must certification and inspection programs and has voluntary reporting program's. these do not exist for the drone industry. despite this lack of a formalized safety program, drum accident rates have improved dramatically over the last 20 years because of self-regulation and customer demand. while there is a long road ahead to improving don't safety, adapting those tried-and-true safety programs for manned aviation to unmanned in addition to strong industry by ends will be key in improving from safety for the myriad of anticipated future missions. as optimistic as i am about drones safety and improving accident safety rates and what this could mean in terms of commercial growth, i'm decidedly less optimistic about the ability of this country to grow the workforce it's going to need to design, develop and manage these systems in the future. with current fiscal belt tightening, are in the budgets across government agencies have
been secretly cut and this means universities cannot produce enough graduates for drone and other autonomous system development life driverless cars, these graduates need to be experts in hardware, software and human machine interaction. is choking of the pipeline that only hurts industry is desperate for these tragic, particularly u.s. citizens, it especially hurts the government began to maintain sufficient staffing and the number of people it needs to simply understand these systems, or more importantly managed such complex systems in the future. in conclusion, i believe a drones have made great safety stride over the past 21 become better when formalized safety practices are adapted form meant aviation. this country needs to move more expeditiously towards the integration of drones and in national airspace to capitalize on the economic potential. lastly government funding in drone and other related autonomous technologies needs to grow a lease in order of magnitude to regain global leadership in an era in which we
are not woefully behind. thank you. >> thank you very much. you raise some questions which i look forward to asking. mr. trenary, vice president of corporate planning and business development -- mr. henio arcangeli. we welcome you. thank you for coming here and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, chairman rockefeller, ranking member thune, and members of the committee. good afternoon. i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the important agricultural services performed a remotely piloted helicopter, and our desire to offer the same essential services to farmers and growers in the united states. mr. chairman, i would like to show a short two minute video that describes the imax in greater detail now.
>> [background sounds] >> this is the r-max. it is nine feet long, stands about three and a half feet high. these are the two cylinder engines, suffering much like a motorcycle. it is used for agricultural purposes. again, piloted by a remote pilot. as you can see, it sounds like a motorcycle. it's not going to sneak up on anybody unexpectedly. it flies low, about 16 feet from the ground. and also flies at a slow speed of approximately 12 miles an hour. from a safety perspective it is
the yamaha motor corporation u.s.a. is based in cypress, california and has extensive business facilities throughout the united states were redesigned to manufacture, and distribute all wide range of consumer products including motorcycles to make tvs come up boats, and golf carts. yamaha as over 2800 full-time employees command our products are sold by thousands authorized dealers nationwide. the rmax is a remotely piloted helicopter controlled by a trained pilot that is on site using a hand-held radio transmitter. the rmax weighs about one average 40 pounds, 9 feet long, and uses a specifically designed to cylinder engine that sounds much like a small motorcycle when operating. for over 20 years the rmax has been used safely on farms where precision spring of crops in japan and more recently australia and south korea. the rmax is only operated within a pilot's line of sight during good weather during daylight hours at slow speeds of 12
miles-per-hour or less and at low altitudes of about 16 feet, which is lower than what most kites fly at. over 2600 rmax are in operation today treating more than 2 million acres of farm land each year in japan alone. this is roughly equivalent to trading the entire state of delaware and rhode island combined. for many uses the rmax has proven to be far more economical and effective than others bring masses, helping farmers lower costs while using fewer chemicals. there is not mounting commercial interest and need for the rmax in this country. for example, recent testing at the nation's largest allman farm just outside of bakersfield, california says the rmax would be ideal against the warns that threaten this industry. the worms invest the top of that tree canopies, making treatment by conventional ground spraying at this difficult and
ineffective. similar testing in napa valley shows the rmax country up to 11 acres of vineyards in the same time a conventional tractor can cover just 1 acre using a fraction of the fuel and significantly reducing chemical draft and use -- human exposure to chemicals. research developed by our industry trade association indicates that the use of the rmax in similar unmanned aircraft systems could improve crop yields by 15% and reduced fertilizer used by as much as 40%. commercial use of uass would also significantly increase economic activity in this country. recent projections indicate the economic impact of these products could exceed $13 billion result in nearly 70,000 new jobs the first three years of integration of. ensuring public safety and privacy are certainly top priorities of this committee and the faa in deserving use.
during its more than two decades of use the rmax has safely large over when a half million total hours of flight. to our knowledge not a single complaint for privacy. the stellar record reflects a comprehensive and systematic approach to operate training, safety, and public privacy. the rmax is manufactured to exacting standards and has a host of built-in safety features including place stability systems, gps for speed and covering control and emergency fail-safe systems. in addition to the use of product safety systems your mom has closely worked with aviation authorities in other countries to develop extensive pilot training and certification program which include both classroom and fuel components involving many hours of in-flight training. also, we have developed comprehensive flight restrictions including low altitude, low-speed operation over uninhabited areas and no rmax are permitted to be
operated by anybody is going to violate privacy rights. he's proven systems in use for over 20 years and millie @booktv 2 million hours of flight can and should provide an effective blueprint for the faa to build on in approving similar agricultural uses of the rmax and other uass. we urge congress to encourage the faa to use the authority under section 333 of the modernization and reform active 2012 to expedite approval for products for precision agricultural and other appropriate commercial uses where they're is a proven performance record and under appropriate operating restrictions that mitigates any public safety and privacy concerns. there is no reason to delay all commercial uass use with the several years it will take the faa to develop more comprehensive regulation. we believe at least some of these products should be available today so that farmers
have the same access to the vital services to their counterparts in other countries already enjoy permit our country can begin reaping the substantial economic benefits these new products offer. thank you very much. >> thank you very much finally mr. christopher calabrese, the legislative counsel at the american civilization. we welcome it. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller. a ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. the widespread domestic use of unmanned aerial systems known as drones presents significant new privacy threats while also a beginning important first amendment values. the aclu believes it is possible to balance both of these interests and develop a legal regime that protect americans' constitutional rights. drungs share some characteristics with unmanned aerial surveillance. the privacy invasion they represent is substantially
greater endoscope and volume. manned aircraft are expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain, which has always imposed a natural limit on aerial surveillance. drones' low-cost flexibility and variety of views erode those limits. the small hovering platforms can explore hidden spaces or peer into windows, and large static and it was continuous long term monitoring all for much less than the cost of a helicopter or a plan. ongoing improvements in computing technology exacerbate these privacy issues. imagine high poor -- high-powered cameras providing more and better detail. imagine technology similar to the naked body scanners at the airport to the attached to a drum. through technology like face recognition, and prove analytics and wireless internet it is possible to track specific individuals with multiple drums. like any powerful technology the
suspension of drums would likely lead to significant arms if left unchecked. persisted monitoring changes how people act in public. studies have shown that merely hanging posters of the human eye is enough to significantly change people's behavior. long-term monitoring is also likely to result in embarrassing or humiliatingly -- video footage. there are also legitimate worries about how footage is used. we are only to -- only beginning to discover the many ways in which data is being used glean from internet use. it is reasonable to fear the same mission with john -- drones while existing mission protections may stem some of the worst of these abuses the potential for harm is already sparking widespread public concern. this is reflected in the fact that in taipei drone ordnances
have been proposed in 33 states and passed in 13. at the same time drones had beneficial uses, some of which are explicitly protected by the first amendment. activists have already used jones to monitor police response to protesters. in drones have helped reporters cover stories in turkey and south america. the aclu believes it is possible to maximize the benefits of drone use and limit the arms. first we have to recognize that many beneficial uses, agriculture, scientific research mapping do not need to involve the collection of personal information. we must explore ways to prevent those drones from becoming surveillance platforms. second, we must continue to protect and safeguard our first amendment values drone photography should be treated as a protected expression under the first amendment. in no case should laws single of
news gathering grounds for special restrictions over and above those applicable to non news gathering operations. for example, singling out photojournalist. third, we must be aware of the special dangers posed by government surveillance. myron's statement describes the details control that should apply to the government, but most relevant to this committee is the intersection with the private sector. as we see from the front page of today's "washington post", and drones flying for one purpose, border security, are already being used for other purposes but unless congress creates limits you can expect private sector drones to be coopted and the same way. finally, policymakers must explore both procedural and substantive privacy protections of remain mindful of first amendment protections. commercial uses should be accompanied by strong privacy policies based on public input and backed by strict accountability measures and possibly overall limits on when
personal information can be collected and used. ultimately a legal regime to protect the privacy and the first amendment will lose a substantial barrier to its option of drolen technology by the assuaging the public's legitimate fears and protecting their rights policy makers and industry can demonstrate the benefits of this new technology. thank you. >> thank you very much. we have a full house today, which i am happy about. i -- just listening to the panel , japan has been doing this for 20 years. you talked about, this has been a common practice in england and other places. and it just makes me think, did we simply avoid the possibility
of these things and then noticed nothing when japan was doing this or in england was doing this or when others are doing this? it really raises the question, is the technology which we are going to innovate going to be any different than the technology that is, and others are already using? for a growing industry that implies that we will be discovering new things are better ways. and i am not sure what your view might be on that. >> well, certainly this technology has been under development for some time and does continue to evolve and evolve quickly. even today we don't have a full and complete understanding of where this might go in the future. that is one of the things that presents the greatest opportunity but also the greatest challenge. japan's aerospace is significantly less complex than
we have in the united states, especially at lower altitudes, primarily due to the fact that here in the united states we have the largest general age -- general aviation fleet. one of the things that is important to has to take into consideration is as we integrate unmanned aircraft how do we ensure that we do not pose significant safety complex with a very vibrant and large general aviation industry that in many instances would operate within the same airspace. i do agree with my colleagues at the witness table that there are many different technologies. they will leave off in different ways and there is probably not a single "regulatory or accommodation approach that would work for everyone. and so we need to consider the wide variety that we have.
>> all right. that's a good answer. i want to ask you, why is it that i tend to worry about it -- you know, when we do things we sort of over do that. we produce endless amounts for endless numbers of corporations which want to have endless economic opportunities and individuals. and private individuals like private jets. i mean, it is just the same. while i worry not just about the safety factor. in other words, one running into another, i do worry about the privacy factor because i think the sense of americans to learn about other americans, whether it is his papers, television, or political opponents or whenever it might be, it's rampant in this country, less controlled.
very accustomed to being taped. 346 times a day, videotaped. they just accept that. it is part of their life. it is not part of hours. just name a couple of things that you worry about in terms of privacy. here to for unsuspecting individuals and corporations. >> thank you, chairman rockefeller. i agree with your concern. from my perspective i was justified before we came to the area was watching footage of the charges video camera, a camera that can be attached to a static blend that flies very high at and can videotape simultaneously in area the size of a medium-sized city. so everyone in that city can be video taped at one time. you can see it in and identify particular individuals. to the extent you can literally see them move their arms on the
ground. that person, i could be tracked by that camera as i step out of my door. you know who i was because i leave my house, get into my car. that type of detailed tracking is foreign to the american idea that we should essentially be left alone and we have not done anything wrong. so that type of detailed and persistent tracking is troubling by the same token, smaller drums present the opportunity to appear in to what are here to for private spaces. you know, someone can be essentially fog around. no, that does not mean a we are dealing with a landscape. there are people in tom laws. there are state privacy torts. so i don't think that we necessarily have to say that this is a blank landscape where no one's privacy is protected. those can be cumbersome method spirited can be difficult to find out what drone is following you. so i am really glad that this
committee is discussing these issues, and i think that as we look at this we're going to think about persistence surveillance as it happens with the internet and other aspects of our lives and lori about what it means if it happens in our day-to-day life of a time when we are outside. >> thank you. >> do you believe there will be will to meet the deadline? >> i believe that we will be able to demonstrate and save integration and what is required for integration of unmanned aircraft. i believe it's going to be staged. i think that as we were just there are a variety of different potential uses for these aircraft around the national airspace system. and the aircraft have different characteristics of different performance specifications. a big part of what we are trying
to accomplish to the designation of the test site is to create a research platform to help research the questions that deal with iran a common way so that we are able to prioritize and identify the things we need to consider as we certify these aircraft, the operators of lead and as we determine how best to accomplish safe integration. and what type of data to yu expects the faa will need from the six test sites to safely advance the integration process and follow-up to that would be, does the faa have a mechanism in place in order to gather store and use the data that would be collected? >> we are working with the test site operators to finalize their research plans, but in our original solicitation we identified a number of research areas that we wanted the test site operators to focus on. these include technology, which we talked about. how we ensure these aircraft
have the ability to interact with one another. they also include questions would need to consider with respect to certain characteristics. what is inappropriate level of certification based on with the aircraft is an alibi p used. there are also issues relating to how these aircraft operate, their record of reliability in different climates conditions, different geographic configurations and hints that is why we have a very broad base of geographic and climatic conditions that the test heads represent. in terms of their -- how that data is developed, each of the test site operators is required to present a plan to the agency of what data will be collected, how that data will be updated, heller will be stored. the primary basis for doing that is to ensure it is on public display. it also does a great job of serving research needs and providing a common understanding of what's out there.
what you're talking about is a small u.s. >> this is everything. this is everything. the test sites, what they form is the basis and a platform. and, i think, a focal point for really developing a very focused environment in which we do what a lot of people want us to do which is to it gives us a degree of focus in a structured way so that we can make balanced decisions of how we accommodate the safely international airspace system. >> as we heard in particular with regard to the video, the a, aircraft, it will be too heavy to be included. the reason i ask that is because most of the agricultural benefits that you talked about and elaborate on, you know, are going to -- it is going to be a different kind of unmanned aircraft. the hundred 40-pound.
>> that's right. >> the question is, to you envision a regulatory structure in the near future that will allow for commercial use of the slightly larger u.s. so that the market potential -- and i'm thinking, of course, with regard to agricultural application. >> one of the things that we need to explore is will we can do through regulation verses certificates of opposition. the certificate of authorization is the process that we use now. and we deal with these in an experimental capacity. we recognize that that is not sustainable long term because effectively what that means is these operations are accommodated by exception. and our goal is to get to integration. regulatory process of necessity and by design is something that is a very deliberative, a thoughtful process but also takes a lot of time. finding the right balance which when what we accomplished through regulation verses we can
continue to accommodate through certificates of authorization, i think, is a key part of what we need to do through these tests and ongoing activities. >> thank you. we have a lot of people here today. i hill back. >> thank you, ranking member party center. >> thank you for holding this hearing. >> put your mike on. >> i will just move it toward me. how is that? i wanted thank you for this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses also. you have a good crew here today. very interested in this particular topic. some of you may know, but nevada was selected as one of the six test sites by the faa to integrate the systems. nevada was specifically chosen to test drone integration, the faa next gen air traffic control system. this makes perfect sense because we are -- nevada is the
birthplace of unmanned aircraft systems industry in this country we have a skilled and experienced work force and more military airspace in nevada than all other 49 states combined. so i appreciate the administrator recognizing that and recognizing what nevada can contribute to this. so well-suited to take on this testing. some have projected that this could bring over $2 billion to a struggling economy in nevada and bring 12 to 15,000 good paying jobs which certainly is appreciated. however, an order for all of this to happen we must do our work to make sure that privacy in in safety concerns are met and as germans are delivered, packages around the country hovering over the law's biggest neighborhoods, we have received numerous concerns about that paid having said that, i would like to go for just a minute,
over some of your comments to be it for military purposes start commercial purposes, please purposes we are hearing the use of this. why are we had 20 years behind? is there reason the rmax is cost prohibitive or overregulated? why are we not at the forefront of the world for that matter on this issue. >> it is difficult for me to talk concerned about all uass. all i can speak to right now is the tea for her. a little bit of background to beat the japanese government approached yacht over 20 years ago asking the company to develop product for automating precision agriculture in japan. yamaha produced the rmax. it again, the rmax is designed to be safe, efficient, and help farmers be more productive and to farm land. we have expanded to other countries like to destroy ed
correa. now we arab or we would like to enter into the united states. a little bit about our efforts. we have to research grants already. uc-davis in california and university of virginia where we are actively doing research on the ability to read so far the results are positive. >> how expensive is it? >> it costs about $000,000. the model of look to in the united states is very similar to what we do in australia. emi does not sell the rmax. released a product to the company that has a trained pilot that, again, passes certification exams, trained out in the field as well as passes the exam. emi will always know where the rmax is and will know that it is being used only by a trained pilot who is doing it safely and does not break any privacy laws. >> in your opinion that , was
that a tory or was it actually a drone? >> i cannot speak to that the rmax is used several sure purposes and is safe. >> to the administrator. how many certificates of authorization have you provided today? >> in general we provide certificates of authorization for public use. that has been the norm. although late last year we provided our first commercial opposition for unmanned aircraft use for surveying, vehicles and were conducting surveys of the environment and marine mammals in the arctic circle area. that represented an important step because it demonstrated the use of these people conducting site surveys as well as environmental and other related uses as we have been talking about. one of the things that we have
to address as we are in this time is how we expand that ability. the test site platforms, each of the test sites will have a certificate of authorization so that they can conduct ongoing test activities. we envision that will serve as a focal point for those of want to test and evaluate the use of unmanned aircraft within an area that insures safe operation. so we are negotiating with each of the successful proposes on the designation of their certificates for authorization. >> really. >> , is this a first amendment issue for your report could it be expanded to a fourth amendment issue? >> it is one of those lovely areas that is both. there is an intersection between 1/4 and first amendment. taking photographs of first amendment protected activity, even if done by a drone. they're is a significant intrusion that protect the fourth amendment. we will have to find a balance.
>> excuse so much to my chairman and ranking member for this very interesting. the panel has been great. the administrator, can you tell me, is there anything precluding the faa from adding privacy to the list of issues that would be explored at the test site such as the one in nevada and all the other side's? is there anything precluding? could you add it or how would that happen? >> we believe that we have added it in that we are requiring the test site operators to have a plan in place and to make it available to the public were there will demonstrate that they -- first of all, they comply with federal, state, and other laws to protect an individual's right to privacy. >> i just want to be clear. i don't want there to be any misunderstanding.
safety and data gathering, aircraft certification, command-and-control issues, control station certification, sensible or technology and environmental impacts is the list i have been given. but you have told me, you have now added to that list? >> no. let me be clear. the list that you have other research areas within the faa has regulatory authority. >> i understand. >> the faa does not currently have regulatory authority relating to the protection of privacy. >> okay, but could you -- >> well -- >> enter agencies, relevant privacy experts. i think you are hearing, this is an important component. >> it is an extremely important component. that is why on november 7th we developed -- we announced and published in the federal register their requirements that would apply to the six test
sites. and there are three components that bill read the test sites comply with federal, state, and other laws that protect an individual's right to privacy, have publicly available privacy policies and their written plan for data use retention and that the conduct reviews. each of the test site operators will be required to have that. in addition, the faa is engaged with our interagency partners in the federal government's to determine how best to deal with this issue long-term as we go forward. >> let me ask you this, as the faa done a survey of state laws regarding drugs and privacy? >> we have not. >> do you plan to? >> we do not plan to. >> i think that is important. let me get to the issue of the rmax, very interesting to me. i am interested because as i
listen here it seems to me -- and a going to ask about this, there are certain uses that do not seem to pose the same problem. one is, let's just say in the farming issue and an of itself. control, and you have shown what it is about. it is not about a gathering purslane commission. it's about taking care of someone fertilizing a farm. so that is the use. the way we used it in california , very important to know how that fire was moving. i would think going after an active criminal such as someone who have kidnapped someone, these are things maybe you want to get a warrant for. it seems to me, and i will ask you to comment. it is not a broad brush to me. users of areas where we probably could move forward in a good way without -- want to ask you what
this farm use. let's talk about japan. did the farmers buy or lease the drug? >> in japan there are several business models. some large farms actually own data rmax. >> i'm going to be quick. so they of the rmax. do they also train someone to be the college? who. >> there is always an on-site pilot. he will either be owned by the farmer or come in and apply the product. >> what do you envision a california situation? they would lease it and then there renta pilots to come over and use him by the our type of deal? >> i think the best model will be where they're is a spraying service. comes with a trained pilot,
sprays the field and then goes on. >> and do they actually bring that to drone on a truck? >> yes. >> it is of line over. that is important. could you comment -- just thinking out loud here -- the different uses cost of concerns. to you agree? >> that is what harbor% correct. we can squeeze all the benefit of doubt. without any privacy risk, we should do that. you know, but i will say one of the things we saw today as customs and border patrol have drones. it turns out lots of other federal agencies and state officials want to use those drones and are knocking out the door. very careful. if you build that they will come, and you have to limit it to these non surveillance uses so that you don't end up with a place where drones are flying overhead used for.
>> very fascinating. we have six test sites. the next step is to -- while those are ramping up your going to pick an academic center of excellence. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> how are we coming on that? if you could briefly tell the committee how we're coming of the process. >> with the test site designations out of the way we are now turning our focus to the development, as we understand the research proposals of each of the six test site operators we are now turning their focus toward developing what would be the agenda for a center of excellence and expecting them to later on this year began the process for a selection of a center of excellence from and aircraft. >> and what do you anticipate
eventually the center of excellence will be named? >> i don't think we have given it a name at this point. >> when the -- when that particular center will be chosen >> my apologies. if we begin the process of designation later on this year probably within the next federal fiscal year. >> and looking at what other countries have done, have other nations, with the test site approach? >> i don't believe so. i think that congress gave us the direction to really look at the test sites because my understanding was that we wanted to get a full and complete understanding of the of why a range of uses that these aircraft to be put to. also, how they operate across the huge and diverse claman's and geography that we have in the united states. and so what congress was
directing as to do was to find a broad platform. it reflects the diversity of the country. we have been able to do that. >> let me just mention one concern. of course, many states apply. perhaps most. my state of mississippi lost out in part because of the department of defense memo that discouraged the use of department of defense property, department of defense special use air space for these test sites. it's really contrary to history that we have had a using places like camp shelby and the combat readiness training center. without getting into an in-depth discussion of the merits of this department of defense policy which she relied on, will you commit to at least revisiting that issue with the department
of defense and having a frank and open dialogue on this issue in case there are other opportunities for to sites? >> let me step back for a moment and talk about the proposals. we received 25 applications from 24 states. all of the proposals were quality submissions. there were carefully thought out. they had a lot of information, and it was clear that all of the applicants took a great deal of time to really try to present to us the very best that they possibly could. we did review them carefully. we chose the six proposals based on the best mix of sites. we look at them individually. >> i'm sure you did. the clock is ticking. but just quickly we have offered a debriefing to each of the test site operators. mississippi has requested one where we can talk a specific terms about the proposal. with respect to the complexity
of working with the military, that is an ongoing thing that we do as we deal with how we share this aerospace that overwise the country. that will continue as we work through this. >> let's keep it on going. i think you're going to find a lot of support on both sides of the aisle for the fourth and first amendment concerns you have. what recourse what senator feinstein have under current california law and what changes would you make for her specific incident where if that were an individual peeping tom clearly there would be consequences. >> well, without speaking to you specifically to california law because each state is a little idiosyncratic, generally she
would likely have a recourse under a state privacy toward. >> is already got that question may well have that. the state privacy toward can be tricky. they're is a specific torte called intrusion of seclusion where i peer into someone's private space. but that intrusion has got to be very heightened. in other words, it can't just be -- and of course it is case by case specific, but it may be dead to seeing her in the window is not enough. she might have to be getting dressed in the morning. and she also has to learn who operated that drone and figure out some way to bring them to court. so she may have recourse now under existing law. it is likely to be cumbersome and require additional fine-tuning in order to allow order figure out who operated. >> could you do this for us on the record? my time is gone. we are fortunate to have the bill of rights. could you give us the benefit of what other countries perhaps
further down the pike on this issue than us have done with regard to privacy protections? we might look at it as lessons learned. >> i would certainly be happy to do that going forward. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are benefits of the technology. a lot of people will make a lot of money, and that's great. it's an industry. we should be in the industry. but there are benefits to -- use. there are also miss use. he should not become spies in the sky. just as there are rules of the road, there have to be rules for the skies. if we are going to commercialize them. and i believe that we can achieve both objectives, protect privacy and give life to this in
technology and bring jobs and economic growth to our country. the new technologies are neither inherently good or bad. it's up to us to animate them with the long standing values of america but we build. flying and potentially spying robots sounds like science fiction. but they are a reality right now. and the technology is getting cheaper and more excess of will. and this drone here has to independent cameras. they can be purchased online for under $100. and with and iphone app you can slide this over anyone's backyard. filming a family. anything you want. so that is why in the house last
congress i introduced a bill and i have introduced the same bill in the senate. drone aircraft privacy in transparency act. my bill requires one commercial drone operator to disclose what data is collected, how the data is used, whether the data will be sold and when the data is going to be deleted. number two, law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using drone this except in emergency circumstances. and three, the faa to create a publicly available website that less when and where drones why. that is in our jurisdiction, and we can pass this legislation and give them the authority and the mandate to do the job they should do. if the faa does not incorporate any privacy protections into the
>> i'm talking federal. we are a federal agency. how about a federal standard. >> i agree. i think there is a long way the faa could go in order to protect privacy and make this work. >> one example. google street you already has the capacity. if you go and see a person their faces blurred, license plates are cleared, there is technology that exists to protect people's privacy. >> should we settle these issues before or after 15,000 of these are flying over the country? >> i think before. >> should we rely upon the courts to interpret law that does not exist or pass a law that is clear. >> courts are slow. >> we should act. thank you. appreciate that. that is why we here. as my we stand dozen supermarkets and shake hands of strangers. and so i guess what i would say to you is this. would you welcome the kinds of a
story which i am talking about inside my legislation? would you welcome that authority and act upon it to ensure the privacy of americans is protected? >> the faa's primary mission is safety. >> if we gave you the authority ensure they are not traded illegally the protect the privacy of americans to make sure the financial records are not compromised. you protect safety. would you implement? >> we would welcome the opportunity to work with our federal partners on the way forward. >> the good news is the federal trade commission also has jurisdiction over privacy and it is also within this committee. we could give the authority to the federal trade commission in order to make sure that we fill this gap to empower americans,
empower people to protect themselves even as this industry creates billionaires'. i thank you. >> thank you. your time was ample. you may be somewhat encouraged by the fact that i see no way which the faa should be given responsibility for privacy. >> i have waited two years to your those words. >> it does not mean i am for your bill. >> excuse me? >> it does not mean i am for your bill. >> i appreciate that, but it is a good start. >> it is a good start. yes. >> all right. people come and people go. so senator can well. >> thank you so much. one of them is in new jersey. that's correct.
>> that is correct. rutgers university in the state of new jersey partner with virginia tech university and presented a proposal on behalf of the state's. >> that is fantastic. i don't want to counter my colleague. new jersey actually was the first in-flight, not north carolina. there was a balloon flight. the first record balloon flight in america. i just want to emphasize that point of pride. >> also the first air-traffic control tower. >> we can go on. first submarine. look, i -- this is exciting to me because it is a whole new frontier. this is somewhere caught between my aspirations and fears. but the reality is -- thank you. at least one error in the house will laugh by joke. but there is obviously a lot of concern, much of which my colleagues have brought up. just for the sake of having
balance i want to focus. you were right about the tensions between fourth and first amendment. knowing how we have operated, a long time ago as a mayor of the city, think it was october. and i worked with the aclu when we were introducing new technologies into our police department. the technology police departments are using our incredible. license plates scanners that can scan thousands of license plates and pulled down data. cameras with incredible sophistication from facial recognition is being introduced and security cameras, night vision, and credible for public safety. we have sound detectors that can isolate gunshots and the like. it is incredible. we reached out to you because obviously with that technology comes tremendous terminal power. then there has to be checks and balances. we asked the aclu to write standard operating procedures,
but i want to ask you the full site in some sense to show that balance. why does the aclu advocate for-cams and police cars? >> that is a great question. you know, accountability can come with this. we think it is appropriate to monitor the government doing its job. it is more appropriate for us to be monitoring the government and the mob to by the government monitoring us. >> of the proliferation that smart phones are now -- of sorry. i just lost by showing a blackberry. but the fact that the kids in high school now have these cameras. what we see no more and more? >> the footage. that's a wonderful development. >> government would like frosty control, the fact of private citizens might have access to some of this technology as well, do you see that as a potential good thing? >> i do. absolutely.
the first amendment protects your ability to photograph things. we think it is a crucial first amendment concern. given that we need to be careful that anything of we do using drone technology does not trample on those rights. and so any restriction has got to be narrowly tailored when it comes to dealing with people's ability to photograph things, and it has to deal with the compelling interest. >> ancient latin written on the coliseum that says who will watch the watchers. you are basically saying the fact that private citizens can observe, fell government actors is a good balance in a free society toward government of reach. some of this technology does offer a potential. i no there are a lot of people in urban neighborhoods who if they have the ability, which they do from their phones, have helped to curb a lot of overreach. >> that's 100 percent correct. >> very quickly.
this is an economic opportunity. it is an opportunity to flex our freedoms, and up to be to advance and create a lot of jobs. one quick question, i want to be respectful. you talk about consulting in your report to be exact on page seven in a section safety, privacy, civil-rights, security. you say you're working in consultation with other agencies on these issues. for the remaining 30 seconds, can you talk to me about the extent of that consultation and what you think the ramifications could be for interagency cooperation when it comes to privacy, civil rights, security, safety? >> i think there is broad agreement that it is an extremely important issue. colleagues of the apartments of homeland security, departments of commerce and others as well as colleagues across the whole of ministration to understand what the issues are that we need to address and what are the appropriate mechanisms that week
as the government might take to enable that we ensure these rights to privacy protected. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. i am going to call upon his endless reserves of goodwill to give me past a very tricky situation. we have this new form. i understand how complicated. in any event senator cantwell has been sitting here throughout the entire thing. three times i have passed over because of other people. >> that should be rewarded. someone who has sat through this entire thing. >> no, you would not do that. >> that they should be rewarded for sitting here. >> heating up time. thank you, mr. chairman.
i think my colleague for his consideration as well. i guess this whole discussion, wanted to make this point and see if i could get your input. technology in and of itself is not the villain. and necessarily the application is either. >> that's right. >> the issue is this larger issue that we're having resonates in this same way. the unauthorized collection, storage, sharing of private data and intimation with of someone's knowledge. obviously as was pointed out from the year, when it comes to surveillance the supreme court has ruled at least if you know someone is surveiling new, chasing you by helicopter because they suspect you were
the coast guard is hovering over your boat when they're out on the pacific you don't have to prove any kind of content because you know that their there. the real issue is will we're going to do to establish protection against that data collection, the sharing of that data collection, or as a lot of the civil libertarians will point out, even the fact that information was just collected and someone could go and get a warrant for it to get that information and you did not even know that your participation in that activity might even be a cause for your data and and permission to be accessed. is that right? >> that's right. we really worry about essentially the super sizing of surveillance by the government, using private sector infrastructure. essentially if you build a surveillance model using drone is for all types of other
purposes the government may piggyback on at the same way that they be back on the internet surveillance. >> am i not correct that you can go in a court case and say use the gps. rare worthy. so that is part of the technology in a car and is currently being accessed for all sorts of legal purposes. >> and pursuant to legal protections and a legal regime. that is what we like to see here. for example, all warrant used, whether the fbi is surveiling or using private footage, there should be awarded. if it is in public should be reasonable suspicion backed up by a judge's approval. the same controls either way. >> i definitely believe in three legs of the stool. the people who don't get to decide when it is accessed by law-enforcement. judicial process has to take place. i am definitely in agreement
concerns. >> is that really his day job? our me, is that his -- >> i am not saying he does not deal with of the people. really, the locus of the activity on drones is with the fda. other agencies have figured this out. >> i had a chance to support and question the new head of the border patrol. obviously in light of the "washington post" article. i think there is a good application for the border patrol to use this. i also think that people need to know that their privacy protections within that framework and that it will be abused and can't just be dropped in by another agency in access to will. that is the broadening of the policy were talking about. >> that is the classic mission creep. if you build a surveillance infrastructure accessed by lots of people. the cp example is a perfect one. they have drones and now suddenly everyone else wants to use them.
those are spying on -- not just at the border. it is up to 100 miles away from the border. that kind of surveillance is already happening. >> thank you for having the hearing. because the committee has oversight of privacy issues is very important issues for our committee. we pass loss of privacy legislation in the past. but that application is great for the u.s. making sure as we say, it has its privileges. u.s. citizenship has its privileges, and it is the right to privacy. thank you, mr. chairman. ..
>> regarding faa certification process as to how much, what responsibilities you heavy and how you will take a look at cybersecurity issues and protection from hacking. we already know that this is taking place. it's both a privacy issue and a safety issue. because hacking into the system when, and we had now a publicly-released hack into a system at creech air force base
in 2011, can result in disclosure of the collection of information that will be collected even though it's protected by privacy laws from release or whatever information's going to be collected. it's going to be in the system. not -- just as a result of the way the system, the system works. but we also know that there is a safety issue here, a very significant safety issue, and that was the problem with creech. i mean, if you can get into the system and control and use the unmanned vehicle for other purposes than intended. so i wonder if you could just give me a little bit of download in terms of what your thinking is on this, how we need to go forward on this, on this issue from a federal level and what -- obviously, there'll have to be a number of agencies involved. >> i'm very concerned about the cyber issue for the reason that you talked about, that we rely
on the information technology infrastructure for the control of these aircraft, and that is different, and that is new as it relates to how do we insure their safe operation within our national air space system. the faa is actively engaged with the technical commitment, and we're d community, and we're working closely to establish what is an appropriate technological standard to insure that we have cyber protections in place so that we can insure the safe operation of these aircraft. i think it's a big issue. and i think it is something that the research we will be conducting in the years ahead needs to be focused on, because we have to insure that these are operated safely. >> do you have the resources now or what additional resources might you need and analysis resources to really put together a strong cybersecurity protection system? >> we don't necessarily have a specific ask right now with respect to cybersecurity. the budget agreement that is
being considered by the congress now does significantly increase the research in the area of unmanned aircraft within the purview of the federal aviation administration. and that is something that i think is a very good thing. likewise, each of the test site operators have developed a research program which they are funding, and many states are putting money into this effort. i think that it's a burgeoning area, it's a growing area, and we have to give it the support, as dr. clemens was talking about, that it needs so we can fully flesh out all these questions. >> well, i hope -- i'm glad to hear that you are well aware of the potential problems here, and i think we would be open, mr. chairman, to address the question of the resources that you might need in this regard. with that, i'll yield back my time. >> thank you, senator coats.
and senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate you holding this hearing today, and i would also like to thank all the panelists for being here. mr. be huerta, in your -- mr. huerta, in your testimony you identified several steps that the faa has already taken to help bring this new technology into our nation's aviation system. your testimony also discusses the challenges to broader and faster uas integration into our national air space system including such things as the pilot training privacy concerns, many of the things that have already been discussed. what do you believe is the federal government's biggest challenge for safe and efficient uas commercial integration into our national air space? >> i think the significant thing that we have to address is that right now, today, this technology operates by exception in the national air space system. and congress has directed us and the faa is very focused on how
do we integrate this technology into the air space system. and there's a wide scope of things that we need to consider. we've talked about sense and avoid, but essentially, what we need to get to is a regime where unmanned aircraft can operate in the same way that manned aircraft operate within the national air space system. and there are considerations that we have with respect to the safety of the aircraft themselves, the certification of the operator and how they interact with other aircraft. and that's the full scope of research activities that we need to look at. you heard me say earlier that i believe it's going to be staged, because we have -- we're going to learn a lot as this technology continues to grow at the exponential rates that it has been. and as we learn more, we have to be, we have to be willing to evolve and recognize that there will be differing regulatory questions that we're going to have, and we're going to have to address them as they come forward.
but it's how do we get to this integration from accommodation where we are today. that's what -- >> what do you think you need from congress, if anything, if you're going to facilitate this? >> i think that congress has provided an important milestone for us and has really challenged us to figure out how we do this, but how we do it safely. and i think that what we all need to recognize is this is a very complex issue, and it has many dimensions to it. we've spent a lot of time today talking about one, the issue of privacy. but other issues have been raised with respect to certificationing -- certify case and training, and there are a whole host of other issues that are out there. i think what i would really ask for is a recognition that this is new in terms of how we deal with it in our regulatory context. ask aviation -- and aviation has always been about how we can be
flexible and accommodating and recognize that we may not be able to provide definitive answers today. what we really need to have is the flexibility that will enable us to figure this out as we go along just as we've accommodated all technological innovations in aviation. >> i'm happy to hear you use the terms "flexible" and "accommodating." as you know in the state of nebraska -- [laughter] we have an issue that i'm going to bring up -- >> i know where this is going. [laughter] >> you know where this is going, exactly. >> sure. >> senator johanns and i have sent a letter to you, and it deals with some of the rule changes that we believe are potentially leading to some pilot shortages in rural parts of nebraska. we're looking at flights being cut back, canceled in many cases, especially in those sparsely-populated areas of our state. and i know e in other -- i know in other states as well.
what do you anticipate happening there? >> sure. >> we going to see some changes in that 1500-hour rule, the flight duty rule as well? are you going to be flexible and accommodating with us? >> well, we're certainly working with the carriers in question to figure out how we can accommodate the unique requirements that we have. but a couple of things that i think are important to, that do provide a framework around that. first of all, the 1500-hour rule was actually established in statute by congress in 2010. the rule that the faa enacted last year actually is relieving of that. what that provides is an opportunity within the framework of the authorization for military and educational credit to be applied toward the satisfaction of that 1500-hour rule. and we believe that that has struck the appropriate balance of insuring that we can be
flexible there. on the flight duty and rest, we announced those rules in 2011 giving the airlines two years to prepare for the implementation of rule, important rules that were put in place to insure that we don't have pilot fatigue. now, we are working with the carriers in the implementation of these. hi understanding that the carrier in question that has, that has been seeing these impacts in particular nebraska, great lakes airlines, has -- is considering whether they should reclassify from part 121, large scheduled service, into part 135 which would bring them under a different regulatory regime. we are very interested this working with the airline to understand what their plan is, and we will continue that discussion to work very closely with them to figure this out and how they can continue to provide the important services they provide. >> well, i look forward to working with you on that. i understand the importance of safety for our pilots, our
passengers, but communities are also affected by this in sometimes distressed areas of our country when they are so sparsely populated. so i hope we can work on that to protect those rural communities. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator fischer. senator nelson to be followed by senator ayotte. >> mr. huerta, let me ask you an unrelated question, and since i've got to run to catch the bus with fellow senators, i'm going to ask our staff director of the science and space subcommittee to visit with you after the meeting since i can't stay. >> sure. >> and that is, i want your advice on what we need to do to get the air force the ease up -- to ease up on the cape canaveral air force station so we can launch commercial rockets from
that location, the actual air force property. >> uh-huh. >> and that's the question. and we want to follow this up in detail with you at a future time. >> sure. >> now, mr. calabresi, before i race off, let me just get some clarification. i, along with the chairman and senator coats, i've had the privilege of serving with them on the intelligence committee in the past, and we have been very hindful of -- mindful of protections of privacy with what we've been going through in trying to protect the nation's national security interests. now, let's say you are a divorce lawyer and you are representing a client and you want to follow the spouse. so you can hire a private
detective. that doesn't take any kind of court order. how do you see the difference of the privacy invasions of employing the services of a drone to follow the suspect spouse? >> it's a great question, senator. i mean, i think that that goes to the fundamental issue of drones which is to say that they're cheaper, and they're smaller, and they're easier to use. so whereby the private investigator might cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars to do this, a drone may be able to do it for tens or hundreds of dollars. so talking about much greater privacy invasions, especially if, for example, you have a drone that surveils a whole city and literally you just need one drone to do that type of tracking. you can see a very different type of invasion. as such, i think it merits scrutiny from congress to figure out the best way to balance, you know, the first amendment rights that i discussed, but also protect people from this kind of
invasive, ongoing tracking. >> well, i'll continue this with you. it does raise some interesting questions such as is the drone technology more ip vasive -- invasive than a private detective would be. because it's got penetrating radar or infrared sensors, those kind of things. ultimately, it's going to be a question of the courts, but it really does raise some interesting questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me ask you, administrator huerta, one statement you made actually struck me which is that with this technology, with the drone technology, the uas technology that we -- you hope that the faa gets in a position where unmanned aircraft is operating under the same set of
rules as the manned aircraft, is what i heard you say. and what struck me with that is that the unmanned aircraft, the capacity of it as just described by the potential seems to have many different capacities that would interfere with different areas of our lives than manned aircraft. so can you help me understand that? >> sure. first of all, i want to clarify that i would never suggest that they would be operated exactly the same in the national air space system. the distinction i was drawing was that right now unmanned aircraft operate in the national air space system by exception, and the direction we've received from congress is to integrate them so that they are a regular part of the operation of the national air space system. so it's not by exception. now, it may be under a different framework under which they operate, but above all else the
thing that the faa is most concerned about is if these are to operate on a regular integrated basis within the national air space system, that they operate as safely if not more safely than other aircraft. >> and one of the things, you know, my prior life i was an attorney general b, and as i look at this, you know, all of you testifying today -- perhaps the aclu could give us the most perspective on this. but as we look at the question of what the rules should be in this, it really has on the an across-government look. you know, we don't have an official here from doj, we don't have from dhs, and there are a lot of aspects to this as senator nelson mentioned. i mean, when i think about using a drone for surveillance in a divorce case, years ago i had a few divorce cases in private practice, and there's no question in my mind that it's way more intrusive because the
nature of what you could see in a drone, with a drone versus a private detective, any access a drone could have is so much greater to the private, ongoings of someone's life of what they could see versus what a private detective would have to be on private land -- excuse me, would have to be on authorized public land and not on -- so i think the rules, the challenges we face on this are immense and that it's not just the players that are at this table, but it has to be a much broader consideration about what about people's constitutional rights and, you know, how -- what type of society do we want in terms of what people are going to be able to see within ourselves in terms of privacy which is much broader than, you know, appreciate all the testimony here. but i think here, mr. chairman, this is something that has to cross committees too to make sure that we get this right in terms of how we come up with what the rules would be as to
how this drone technology can be used. this is, obviously, just a commentary on all of this. but i would also say wanted to get your opinion on this: many states are acting now as state legislators, very concerned about this issue of what can drones do or not do in their states. it strikes me that you could have a situation where the patchwork is that you have much more protection in new hampshire than you do, for example, in massachusetts which isn't uncommon in terms of arrives and issues that are important to my constituents coming from the live free or die state. but really thinking about when we have issues that may infringe on our constitution involved that what is all of your views in terms of a national versus a patchwork of where we are now? do you think that we should come up with standards that really govern the operation of the unmanned vehicles, obviously, on
the safety end it's going to be one thing for the faa, but on all these other issues where you see state legislatures trying to get this there. i wanted to get your opinion on that and, certainly, mr. calabresi, i'd like to hear what you think about that. >> well, i think it clearly demonstrates the enormous interest in this issue. you go from 0 states to 43 with 13 state laws happening, that's incredibly quickly. i think the aclu is relatively agnostic in terms of state versus federal on the privacy issues. obviously, they need to protect the first and fourth amendment, so we are a little concerned about some of the rights to photography in the first amendment context with some of these state laws. but at the same time, we're cheering the warrant requirements, the restrictions on law enforcement use. so, you know, there's good and there's bad. certainly, i think congress has a role in finding some uniformity assuming it's at a high level of privacy protection and first amendment protection. >> thank you.
if i may, i think to air rah phrase a comment -- paraphrase be a comment earlier, i don't think all unmanned aircrafts you could say all size fits all. i think you need to look at the application and the safety, how it's going to be used. and i think congress with the faa modernization reform act clearly provided a path forward to move this industry forward. basically what congress, i think the intention was to move forward approval of unmanned systems that can provide a useful service to society that's safe, operates with a line of sight. and i think rules can be made such that unmanned systems can be introduced into the air space and is assure both safety and privacy, and that can be done on a national basis. >> may i respond? >> sure. >> i'd like to echo senator cant welshing each though she's not in the well, earlier statements. i think everybody's getting a little too overfocused on the
drone technology in terms of the unmanned system. i think that this room will probably be gathered again very soon over the driverless car technologies, for example. unmanned cars are going to have cameras outside the car filming you, inside the car filming you, and all of this will be hackable to anybody external to the car. so we need to be clear it's not just unmanned aerial vehicles, but unmanned ground technologies as well. so i think a lot of those same issues are going to apply to both domains. >> uh-huh. well, i appreciate -- i know my time is up, all of you. it seems to me, obviously, this is an area we need to weigh in on and have, make sure that we have some clear rules here because of all of the issues that are at stake both within the constitution and also safety issues, etc. but it's really challenging because if we're looking at a crop sprayer, we may have environmental issues. if we're looking at, you know, an issue of really surveillance technology, then we have other
issues, maybe perhaps fourth amendment, other types of issues. so i think that's -- this is where it is going to have to be if we work on it, this committee going to have to sort of have a broader view and make sure we look across government and what the possibilities are. so i appreciate all of you being here. >> thank you, senator. dr. cummings, it was good that you spoke up, because i thought this was a very good hearing but for the single fact that you didn't get asked enough questions. [laughter] and so i have two for you. the, i mean, first of all, you brought enormous enthusiasm, and you raised a question in my own mind as to whether or not because other countries are ahead of this that that's necessarily a bad thing. you know, people get ahead in some things and get behind in others. drones really came out of the two wars we've been engaged in for a very long time, and so --
and japan's a very different society. i mean, it's a society where people tolerate intrusion more easily, i guess, than in most western societies. that would probably be true of a lot of asian countries. i but in any event, can you hack into a drone easily? >> there are two different layers that you should be thinking of in terms of the internal control system of a drone that actually does can its controlling guidance. that would be much more difficult to do as opposed to hacking into its navigation and control system. which is, for example, gps. and this is, in fact, probably one of the biggest technological hurdles that the drone industry, but as well as the commercial airuation industry's going to have to get over. it is very easy. my students could, over the weekend, hack into any vehicle guided by gps, so that is true
of commercial air liners, driverless cars this is going to be a big issue in the future. so i think being a able to make technology gps-proof is a major hurdle that we need to get over. this country is looking at it. there are lots of academic labs and most notably jpl out in california is trying to develop what they call terrain-relative navigation. but all of these budgets, i hate to beat that horse, but all of these budgets just took a recent big hit, and unless this country puts more emphasis into terrain-relative navigation or gps-free technologies, we're not going to be able to get over that hurdle. but, again, it's not just an unmanned vehicle hurdle, this is also a commercial aircraft hurdle. >> yeah, you raise an important point which i won't comment on just now, but, i mean, we are constraining what we can do in the future by our decision making. you said that you weren't much
of an expert on arrives, but i want -- on privacy, but i want you to make yourself one for the moment and reflect on what you've heard here today. >> well, i didn't say i wasn't an expert on privacy, i knew there would be so much discussion about it today that i didn't want to jump on that bandwagon too soon. i do think all these privacy issues are important. but, again, i think we lose sight of the drones as a technology that's causing the pryce concerns as -- privacy concerns as opposed to the technology itself. i've seen little bug robots being developed in lab that could be slipped under this door at any time, and we could all -- we wouldn't even though we were being watched because of the small scale of these technologies. again, it's not just a drone issue. the driverless car issue, robots this your home issue, your skype camera on your computer that can be turned on remotely. and this, again, speaks to, i think, a technological illiteracy problem that we have
in our nation particular late the government levels. and i don't mean to be mean towards government employees. but our top people in the universities are not graduating and going into the government. they're not even going into the defense industry. our top technology brains who understand and who are developing these very cutting edge technologies are going to google, they're going to oracle, they're going to apple, they're going across the ocean, they are not staying inside the government and helping this government be able to identify and then manage these issues. i think this is going to be a very serious rob in the future that our government does not have enough qualified people on staff to address these issues. >> i accept that, but i think there's a countermovement which is taking place even in places like west virginia. i think that a lot of young people are not at all happy the way government is being done or run, and i think there's in many ways a very broad interest from people who are not yet ready to go into a political career, a
government career about the possibility of so doing. and i'll be very disappointed if i'm wrong. i hope i'm not. >> yes, sir. i don't mean to be contrary, but it's one thing to be interested in going into government service, it's another thing to have the intense technological background that you're going to need. people in the future are going to need a hard core background in statistics, control theory and even human psychology to be able to understand a lot of these technologies. and it basically speaks to the lack of this country to motivate good s.t.e.m. foundation in terms of the number of students that we have. and so i know that you must hear this all the time, that we need more and more s.t.e.m. funding, but i think this problem's going to become particularly acute as we start to move into these more autohated and autonomous technologies. >> well, we've done in this committee, we started it, we've reauthorized it, and we're going to have to do so again, and we're just up against this ridiculous, you know,
spending -- can't spend money regardless. but that's just my opinion. i want to say i think this has been a very wide-ranging, not totally focused but necessarily, therefore, better hearing bringing out a whole variety of issues in relation to different agencies' roles and aclu role and your role, yours at duke, am i right? and so i think it's been stimulative this that respect. in that respect. this is the first hearing we've really had on drones, and i think it ought to be that kind of an opening up a variety of questions hearings, and then we'll be able the focus in more closely on special aspects of it. be ask your problem -- and your problem, dr. cummings, will be do we do it fast enough.
having said that, the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> join us tonight for more author interviews from our latest book, "sundays at eight." tonight's featured author, dr. alfredo quinones hinojosa. here's a preview. c-span: how did you come to the country illegally, and then how did you become legal? >> guest: so it is quite interesting. so you know that through the country, this country was built upon people who have come and immigrated to this country, some of them legally, some of them illegally. in my case i came this with no documentation and no ability to get a job or an education. so when i came into the united states in the late '80s and i crossed the border between mexico and the united states,
ended up coming into the san joaquin valley to work as a migrant be farm worker -- migrant farm worker, it was no challenge to find a job. there were not a lot of thousands of people trying to get the jobs of pulling weeds with these very same hands that are now doing brain surgery. i was pulling the weeds. and as you can imagine pulling the weeds from the land, the land that is doing all the products -- cantaloupes, cauliflower, corn, all those kinds of things. my hands were bloody, i mean, continuously being hurt. so there were not a lot of people lining up. i came in and asked for a job, and i immediately got a job. and then eventually, right around ronald reagan had the immigration reform that gave a working authorization specifically for people who had been in the united states for a certain amount of years, and then there was a special legislation for people when came and worked as migrant farm workers. and that legislation allowed you
to have a working authorization. that was the first thing and to pay taxes. and eventually, the working authorization you couldn't go back anywhere. couldn't go back to your cub. but it -- to your country. but it allowed you to work legally, attackses and eventually apply for a green card which is eventually what i did. so the country was welcoming people like me who worked in the fields. it was a different time, you know? and i felt that i was given an opportunity, an opportunity to live the american dream. >> join us later today when we'll show you our interview with dr. question known yes, sir hinojosa again in its entirety, this from our "q&a" program. it's one of the author interviews from our latest book, "sundays at eight." see the program today at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend.